newYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
On Thursday, the two Trump cases came together at the U.S. Supreme Court, where Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked a pointed question. What can we do to stop “creative prosecutors” from using “vague laws” to indict the president, especially prosecutors from the “opposition”?
In the age of Trump, the answer is nothing. That’s exactly what Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is doing against the former president in a New York courtroom. and Fulton County, Georgia Attorney Fannie Willis. and Special Counsel Jack Smith for both Washington, D.C., and Florida.
Mr. Kavanaugh’s question came during oral arguments regarding the presidential immunity issue raised by Mr. Trump in the Jan. 6 lawsuit filed by Mr. Smith. But its larger implications were very clear. Another justice, Neil Gorsuch, agreed, voicing concerns about the use (or abuse) of “criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations of motive.”
President Trump praises first prosecution witness in criminal trial: ‘Very good’
Of Trump’s four criminal indictments, the Bragg case is the most egregious example of this nightmare scenario. That’s exactly what it is. It’s a politically motivated case brought on by unscrupulous prosecutors to fulfill a campaign promise to nail down President Joe Biden’s rival, Donald Trump. To accomplish that, Bragg creatively mined not only vague statutes but also expired statutes that provided little support for the conduct charged.
A neutral, objective judge with knowledge of the law would have long ago dismissed Mr. Bragg’s false indictment. Instead, the case went to Judge Juan Machan, whose anti-Trump bias is evident every time he appears in court. His unconstitutional gag order against a leading presidential candidate is just one in a series of head-slapping statements.
Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker returned to the stand Thursday. Let me tell you, Pecker’s testimony is inconsequential and incompetent. He knows nothing about the 34 criminal cases President Trump is on trial for falsifying business records. it doesn’t matter. Mr. Bragg’s strategy is to tie Mr. Trump to the infamous tabloid’s sordid dealings. If you’ve ever heard of sin by association, this is filth by association. However, that does not constitute a crime.
Like Pavlov’s dog, Pecker dutifully spouted desired answers to pre-planned, premeditated questions from Assistant Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass. When asked whether Mr. Pecker was aware that it was illegal to influence an election at the request of a candidate, he said, “Yes.” Neither is the truth nor the law. I don’t see that anywhere in the criminal law. The prosecutors simply made it up.
Live updates: Supreme Court hears immunity claim, Trump New York trial testimony resumes
For more than two centuries, candidates have promoted positive stories and hidden negative ones. “It’s not a crime for candidates and their supporters to try to influence elections,” said Fox News contributor and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. ” he pointed out.
However, what is definitely illegal is collusion through “illegal means.” But that’s not what happened in this so-called “hush money” case involving porn star Stormy Daniels. She demanded cash, but Trump capitulated. She signed a non-disclosure agreement in exchange for her silence. There’s no crime there. It’s completely legal.
Stormy Daniels sits down with Piers Morgan for an interview available on Fox Nation (Fox News)
It’s also legal to buy the rights to someone’s sordid story without the intention of publishing it. why? There were no victims and both parties had agreed. Daniels received a tidy sum of $130,000 and signed a deal with the National Inquiry that obligated the tabloid to actually publish her story. So, once again, there is no crime.
Trump lawyers and Supreme Court justices clash over whether the president who “ordered” a “coup” can be prosecuted
It is also not illegal for candidates or publications to suppress politically harmful information. If not, candidate Joe Biden would have been charged with conspiring with others to bury or censor the infamous laptop scandal weeks before the 2020 presidential election. Otherwise, Hillary Clinton would have been charged with covering up accusations of her husband’s infidelity during the 2016 campaign.
But if your last name is Trump, there’s a different standard. If it didn’t exist in the law, fanatical, partisan prosecutors would make it up on their own.
The “unlawful means” law that Mr. Bragg intentionally misrepresents is found in New York State Law 17-152. You may find that it is a time-barred misdemeanor. So, as I explained in a previous column, what the U.S. Attorney’s Office has done is to link a dead business record misdemeanor to a dead campaign misdemeanor based on state law that doesn’t apply to federal elections. be.
For more FOX News opinions, click here
Recognizing this, Bragg’s agents tried to have it both ways. In his opening statement, Assistant Attorney General Matthew Colangelo argued what President Trump was doing. Really (wink, wink) violated federal election law. Although, of course, he didn’t.
Jurisdiction over federal elections rests only with Congress, not local district attorneys. Both the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice concluded that Mr. Trump’s payments to Mr. Daniels did not qualify as campaign expenses. Therefore, no crime was committed.
None of these circumstances stopped Mr. Bragg from blatantly misrepresenting the law and making contrary claims in an attempt to mislead the jury. If a flexible judge presides over the case, prosecutors may be able to get away with it. Manhattan jurors hope to convict Trump for being Trump, but he may not realize he’s being duped. Or they won’t care.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The whole thing looks like a cartoon. Like Bullwinkle J. Moose and his damn top hat. He liked to say, “Hey, Rocky! I’m not thinking! (Ripped sleeve). Watch me pull the rabbit out of the hat!” And he said, “Presto!” At that moment…a roaring lion’s head pops out. Or some other stupid animal.
That’s Alvin Bragg. He is Bullwinkle. In a fair court with an impartial jury, his trick would fail miserably. But Manhattan jurors may be more inclined to see the white rabbit than the actual lion.
Click here to read more about Greg Jarrett
